We move now to item 6, a Member debate under Standing Order 11.21 on the legislative consent process. I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the motion.

Rhys ab Owen has disappeared. Bear with us a second, everyone, please. We're waiting for the Member to return. There he is. Rhys, over to you to move the motion.

Motion NDM7843 Rhys ab Owen, Alun Davies, Jane Dodds, Heledd Fychan

Supported by Luke Fletcher

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes the increase in the number of legislative consent motions being presented to the Senedd.

2. Recognises that this is both a consequence of Welsh Ministers seeking to use UK Parliament legislation to enact Welsh Government legislation and the UK Government seeking to override our democracy, erode the devolution settlement and diminish the powers of the Senedd.

3. Believes that all substantial and significant primary legislation should be enacted by the Senedd rather than through the LCM process.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to:

a) work with the Senedd's Business Committee to review the LCM process to ensure it is fit for purpose;

b) clarify the principles of when LCMs are used;

c) work with the Llywydd to seek an urgent review of the impact on the devolution settlement and the powers of the Senedd as a consequence of UK legislation.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and sorry for not being here on time. I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity to bring this important debate forward. The past two years have seen a huge increase in the number of legislative consent motions brought forward to this Chamber. Last year the number was highest, with 18, and this year the second highest, with 16. This reflects the contempt of the Tory Government, which is seeking to undermine the devolution settlement. Essentially, these LCMs are only for show. The Sewel convention is something that's a thing of the past. The Westminster Government will continue to ignore this Parliament and continue with its own agenda, whatever the result of the votes on LCMs in this Senedd. This shows how voiceless and inconsequential our nation's Senedd is in Westminster.

The increase in LCMs should be of real concern for supporters of democracy here in Wales. They are a real threat to this institution, yet they pass through this Chamber like a mere footnote. Even the most ardent of political commentators don't pick up on them, but they are a Trojan horse that slowly, stealthily and steadily erodes the very foundation of the political system here in Wales. We need to wake up to the threat or we will see a far weakened Senedd by the next election. No matter what the committee on Senedd reform does, we could see a far weakened Senedd here by the next election.

We should work together within the Senedd and with both houses at Westminster to clarify the principles of when LCMs are used. Yes, I admit I can see that there is a place for LCMs, but they should only be used at the periphery of our devolution settlement. However, time and time again, we are seeing LCMs that go to the very heart of the devolution settlement here in Wales. Let's be clear: laws that affect Wales and sit within the Senedd's competency should be made here in Wales, in this place. We are the Parliament of Wales, we are the national legislature, not some symbolic shell that bends to the whims of whoever is in Government in Westminster. This is especially poignant, isn't it, at the moment, as we see just how callous this current Tory UK Government has been in recent weeks—a UK Government that shamefully wants powers to strip British citizens of their citizenship, rendering them stateless without any reason given, a UK Government that wants to imprison people for protesting, a UK Government that wants to disenfranchise vast swathes of the population through their Elections Bill.

This Tory Government is hostile to devolution—that is a fact. The Prime Minister himself labelled devolution as a mistake, and this is shown not only in his words but in his actions. Time and time again, we have seen a breakdown in inter-governmental relations. The Prif Weinidog himself has described Boris Johnson as 'bottom of the barrel'. Why, then—why on earth—would we give this UK Government the power to erode, undermine and dismantle this Senedd piece by piece? We need to be honest with ourselves. The devolution process in Wales has come to a swift halt and we are now in reverse.

We need a more systematic approach in noting where and when this Parliament gives its consent to the UK Government on primary legislation. We need an urgent review to understand exactly what kind of impact these LCMs will have on the devolution settlement now and for the future. We were all elected to this place by the people of Wales; we are accountable to them. I don't want Bills and laws within the competence of this Senedd to be passed by Tory Ministers in London—Ministers who simply don't care about the people of Wales. The Westminster Government refused to extend furlough to workers in Wales during the firebreak last year, the Westminster Government is ensuring that Wales doesn't receive a penny of consequential money as a result of HS2, and the Westminster Government secured an ideological Brexit that has left Wales a poorer nation.

We also live in a bilingual nation where Welsh and English exist side by side and are prosperous languages, and this Parliament is a good reflection of that. On a personal level, Deputy Llywydd, I can say that I've spoken far more Welsh professionally during my seven months in this Senedd than I have done in the 12 years prior to this. From the outset, legislation in this Senedd has been bilingual, with both languages treated equally. Clearly, that is not the case in Westminster. The leader of the house even described Welsh as a foreign language. There is more respect to a dead language such as Latin there than there is to a living language such as the Welsh language.

Lord Thomas, the former Lord Chief Justice, in a recent evidence session to the legislation committee, described the devolution settlement in Wales as complicated—complicated even for lawyers—and the use of LCMs complicates matters even further. It will make no sense to the vast majority of people that a law within a devolved area, a matter that has been devolved for over 20 years, is being passed by Westminster. The Welsh Government are adding to the complexity. They are breaching their own duty under the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 by consenting—but not only consenting; at times, encouraging—the Westminster Government to pass legislation within devolved areas. Imagine a lawyer, let alone a layperson, looking for law relating to the environment in Wales. That person would rightly believe that any recent law within a devolved area will have been passed here by the Senedd, but that is not the case. The devolution settlement in Wales is complicated enough without the Welsh Government adding to that confusion.

LCM Bills will not be bilingual. They cannot form part of the codification plans of the Welsh Government, and they will not be scrutinised properly by the Senedd. We saw that only yesterday in the two committees' response to the leasehold reform Bill. Both committees complained about the lack of time for scrutiny. The LCMs will also hinder future Senedds from passing legislation within these areas. Members, are we really happy to hand back powers to a Tory Government in Westminster that moves from one scandal to the next, from one mismanagement to the next?

The people of Wales voted twice in favour of this Senedd, and there was a significant pro-devolution majority elected to this place in May. We must not undermine this clear democratic mandate by passing over our powers to Tory Ministers without any real scrutiny here at all. Welsh laws should be scrutinised properly by us as Members. That's our job. I want to see a Senedd that is strong and democratic, an empowered Senedd that uses its powers fully to effect positive change to the lives of the people of Wales.

The Welsh Government cannot always pass the buck to Tory Ministers in London. We need to see an urgent review into the LCM process, one where we ask ourselves if they are even relevant, should they exist at all, where we forensically analyse the impact they have on the legislative process in Wales and make sure that Members in this place can effectively scrutinise legislation. Members, we must stand up for our Senedd, for its powers and for Wales—a Senedd that delivers radical, thoughtful and scrutinised legislation. That isn't happening with the LCM process. That's not how good law is drafted and enacted. It's our role and our duty, as Senedd Members, to scrutinise law and to make sure that the people of Wales have the laws that they deserve passed by their Parliament. Diolch yn fawr.

I am speaking today as Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. I'm contributing to this debate because of the responsibilities my committee has in reporting on legislative consent memoranda referred to us by the Business Committee. 

Let me recognise at the outset that not all memoranda, or LCMs, are the same. Some will relate to areas where there may indeed be sufficient and appropriate reasons for the UK Government to be permitted to legislate in devolved areas. For others, we recognise that the current UK Government is and has been seeking to legislate in devolved areas against the wishes of the Welsh Government, and indeed against the wishes of this Senedd. However, other memoranda—a third category—reflect the Welsh Government's approach to allow and sometimes request that the UK Government takes forward legislation on its behalf. And it's these memoranda that have caused the committee the most concern.

Now, at times, we've felt it necessary to criticise the Welsh Government’s approach and to do so quite strongly and starkly, and we genuinely take no satisfaction from doing so. We'd much prefer to contribute to the steady improvement of legislation in this place—in the Senedd—and to delivering the best possible outcomes for communities across Wales. But instead, we find ourselves, particularly in this sixth Senedd, spending a significant amount of time reporting on legislation being made in another place, in Westminster, which we have no real scope to influence or to shape. It is disconcerting and, sometimes, uncomfortable.

Now, our role as a committee is to report on constitutional matters relevant to the memorandum in question, and, in so doing, we draw relevant matters to the attention of the Senedd so Members can take account of them when voting on a consent motion. We seek to ensure the integrity of devolution is preserved. This is a vital role, and it's one that we take very, very seriously, and not least because, as the Counsel General, in fact, has highlighted—a former Chair of the committee that I now chair—there is no second, revising Chamber here in the Senedd. Our committee does that role, in effect.

Now, we'll always aim to be constructive in our reporting as a committee, but—and Ministers will understand this position—we have to speak out loudly and clearly when there are important questions to be asked, if we believe that Welsh or UK Governments are taking decisions that could potentially damage or undermine devolution. And in making these observations, I should add that only on rare occasions will the committee recommend that consent be granted or denied for a UK Bill. Ultimately, that has got to be a matter that is for the Senedd as a whole.

But as I alluded to, our work programme since July has been dominated by the scrutiny of legislative consent memoranda. Last Friday, we laid our seventeenth report on LCMs since the establishment of our committee—17. These 17 reports have covered 14 memoranda and eight supplementary memoranda. New memoranda have been laid in the last week or so, and there is the promise of yet more to come; we are busy. The 17 reports represent about half the number of reports published by our predecessor committee in the entirety of the fifth Senedd. This is quite stark when you bear in mind that many of the fifth Senedd reports concerned Brexit-related UK Bills.

Now, the number of reports we publish does not of course represent the entire story, as the excellent Senedd Research article published recently highlights. So far in the sixth Senedd, up until today, Welsh Government has laid those memoranda for 17 UK Bills, covering 360 clauses and schedules. And that contrasts starkly with the fifth Senedd: from May 2016 to May 2017, the Welsh Government laid consent memoranda for 10 Bills, covering only around 80 clauses and schedules.

Now clearly, this is a significant increase already this year in legislation in devolved areas being made at Westminster rather than the Senedd. We've made no secret about our concern about the extent to which the UK Government is now legislating in devolved areas and, not surprisingly—and picking up the comments made earlier by the person introducing this, by Rhys—it's a matter we'll return to in the new year.

But in closing, there is one improvement I would recommend, as committee Chair, that the Welsh Government make in its approach, and that is bringing forward consistently high-quality memoranda. They need to articulate why a memorandum is being brought forward: is it being laid because the Welsh Government has requested provisions; is it as a result of collaboration; or is legislation being imposed on Wales, reluctantly, by the UK Government, or against the wishes of the Welsh Government? The rationale for the approach needs to be explained fully, covering not only the provisions for which consent is being sought, but also matters of legislative competence and progress on all relevant inter-governmental relations. Too often, important matters of detail are contained in correspondence when they should form an integral part of the case for seeking consent within a memorandum.

Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, we will continue to hold the Welsh Government to account firmly on its use of legislative consent memoranda, and we'll do so in the interests not only of good constitutional practice, but also, Welsh democracy. Thank you very much. 

I'm pleased to contribute to this debate as Chair of the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee, and you'll be aware that the committee wrote to the Business Committee back in September outlining what we considered to be the key challenges for the Senedd in scrutinising LCMs. We asked the Business Committee to undertake a review into the LCM process to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Now, the letter was prompted by our experience of scrutinising on the LCM for the environment Bill during the early part of this Senedd term, but it's safe to say that the challenges we face were not unique to that LCM, and they are not unique to this Senedd. Before the fifth Senedd, LCMs, in the main, had related to narrowly focused provisions; they didn't attract much argument or controversy. The fifth Senedd was perhaps a turning point in scrutinising LCMs as LCMs for large, complex Brexit-related Bills that made substantive provisions for Wales were brought forward.

It became apparent very quickly that the LCM process was not designed to support scrutiny of Bills such as these. Take our scrutiny work for the environment Bill as an example. Like other Brexit-related Bills, the environment Bill contained substantive provisions for Wales in key areas of devolved policy, provisions that would undoubtedly be better suited to a Bill in this Senedd. Had it been a Senedd Bill, the scrutiny timetable would have spanned many months. Instead, we had four weeks, just two meetings, to consider and report on the LCM. Had this been a Senedd Bill, the Welsh Government would have been required to provide detailed information on its policy objectives, the purpose and intended effect of the provisions, and cost estimates among other things. But the LCM, of course, contained limited information on some of these aspects and no information at all on others. Had this been a Senedd Bill, there would have been an opportunity for the committee's concerns about specific provisions to be addressed by amendments, but the environment Bill had already reached its final scrutiny stages in the UK Parliament, so negotiating amendments wasn't an option. 

Deputy Llywydd, the challenges I've outlined are probably, by now, familiar to most, if not all policy committees, given the significant number of LCMs brought forward since the start of the sixth Senedd. We find ourselves in a position where the Welsh Government is using LCMs as a replacement for Senedd Bill scrutiny processes. The UK Government is increasingly using UK Bills to legislate in devolved areas without the Welsh Government's agreement. The process set out in our Standing Orders simply wasn't designed for this, and we must ask whether it is still fit for purpose. 

As was outlined in my letter to the Business Committee, now is the time to review the LCM process. If the Welsh Government intends to continue to use UK Bills to legislate for Wales on matters of significance, then we must be confident that the LCM process facilitates and supports meaningful Senedd scrutiny, and that the Welsh public and stakeholders are consulted on matters that will affect them. 

I very much hope, therefore, that today's debate will mean that we do now see progress made towards a review, and that, as a result, we will see significant and early improvement to the current process. Thank you. 

May I thank Rhys and others who have brought this important debate forward today?

As we've heard, this is a crucial process for the Senedd, and it is falling far short of the rigour that we should expect. The volume, the timescales, the information, and the scope of the LCMs are all putting pressure on the process. There was nearly an equal number of LCMs in the year 2020-21 as there were in the four years previously. Memoranda such as the elections Bill, health and care Bill and building safety stray into areas that have long been matters devolved to Wales. We should be mindful of the principal importance of the Senedd in enacting significant primary legislation on devolved matters itself. And there is a principle in asserting the power of this place as the primary law-making body, especially when the Conservatives in Westminster appear to be actively looking for any way to undermine devolution and our Senedd.

I want to echo the concerns about the volume of LCMs, their timescales and the quality of the information available. As a new Member, that leaves me, as I'm sure it does others, on the back foot. Not only is the Senedd not given sufficient opportunity to scrutinise what are significant pieces of legislation, but not all Members are able to engage equally. This is, of course, another reason why there should be an increase in the number of Senedd Members to ensure that the Senedd is properly able to scrutinise legislation. So, in summary, I support the concerns about the use of LCMs and the impact on the devolution settlement, especially with such significant pieces of legislation, including legislation that could be brought forward here being triggered through the LCM process. But, more importantly, we should only progress legislation that does not impact the devolution settlement or our Senedd. Diolch. 

I'd like to thank Rhys ab Owen for bringing this debate forward this afternoon, giving us an opportunity, at last, to have a proper discussion on the LCM process, not that the words 'legislative consent motion' have been foreign to this Chamber. As other speakers have mentioned, the Welsh Government has tabled LCMs for 17 UK Bills within the first seven months of the sixth Senedd, which is more than any other year, with the exception of 2020. And, if we believe in devolution, and the idea that decisions about Wales should be made in Wales, and believe in this Parliament, then this should be a cause of concern for us, because it limits our powers, as a Senedd, and is, therefore, an attack on democracy. 

As we're all aware, committees, as we've heard from Huw Irranca-Davies and Llyr Gruffydd, have raised numerous and broad-ranging concerns about all of these issues, including the lack of background and the development of the legislation, the lack of clarity in drafting, that the proof on the requirements for LCMs are unclear, and reasons provided by Welsh Government are unclear as to provide consent or not, the views of the Welsh Government on particular clauses, the extent to which the Welsh Government has sought to amend UK Bills, and the nature of amendments sought, as well as the impact of the Bill on legislation or other key frameworks. This clearly shows, therefore, that there are a number of unresolved issues in terms of these LCMs. 

However, although these concerns have been raised, the Senedd hasn't had an opportunity to meaningfully scrutinise the process until today. And I would like to take the opportunity therefore to clearly express that I'm very dissatisfied with the way in which the Welsh Government has dealt with the LCM process to date. After all, we must ask why the Welsh Government chooses, time and again, to make amendments within a UK Bill, rather than bringing forward its own legislation. Is it because of lack of time, a shortage of Members or a lack of desire on the Government's part? Or are there other reasons? And what impact does this then have on scrutiny, as Members and stakeholders can't contribute and add to this legislation under this process? Where is the voice of this Senedd and the people of Wales in that process? 

Every time an LCM is brought forward it strengthens the dangerous precedent of providing powers to the Secretary of State, rather than to Welsh Ministers, and this isn't why people from across parties campaigned for an expansion in the powers of this Senedd. LCMs confuse a system that is already complex, and make it difficult for the people of Wales to influence the legislative process, here in Wales. I would, therefore, like to encourage my fellow Members to vote in favour of the motion today, and to take a stand against this clear threat to our democracy. The people of Wales have placed their trust in us to pass legislation in devolved areas for over 20 years, rather than the UK Government. We should therefore ensure that we deliver on their behalf, rather than handing powers back to the UK Government, which, time and time again, has shown that it cares nothing for the interests of the people of Wales.

I'll keep my remarks brief in this debate, but needless to say that I will be voting against the motion on the order paper today. And that's not because I don't believe that devolution should exist; I campaigned vigorously for the further powers for the Senedd in the referendum back in 2011. But, having lived through an experience where we had the dreadful legislative competence Order system, which was around in my first term in the Senedd, I can tell you this, Mr ab Owen and everybody else who has contributed to the debate: the reality is the LCM system is much fairer and much more respectful of devolution than ever the LCO system was, which preceded it.

Now, we must look at LCMs as tools that can be used effectively by the Welsh Government to expedite the implementation of its policies. That is one of the reasons why LCMs sometimes come forward, and, as Huw Irranca-Davies has quite rightly said, they can be used entirely appropriately in that way in order to achieve a Government's policy objectives. In addition to that, of course, the UK Government is entitled sometimes to legislate on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom, and it did so on behalf of the people of Wales in spite of the fact that the majority of politicians in the Senedd at the time wanted to stop Brexit, and that, I think, is what has clouded the views of many people who are taking part in this debate today on the LCM process that exists. Because the reality is that, unfortunately, because of the hostile views and the deliberate attempts to thwart Brexit from many of the political parties represented in the previous Senedd, there were more rows than there would have been about the use of LCMs in order to legislate.

And, of course, it is not true, Heledd Fychan, to suggest that this legislation is not being scrutinised effectively and that it's not being scrutinised by people representing Wales. It is being scrutinised. Any legislation that is undertaken by the UK Parliament is scrutinised by far more people than are scrutinising legislation passing through the Senedd. We have 650 MPs, 800 and odd members of the House of Lords, and don't forget either that there are people representing Wales who are representing people in Parliament in both the Lords and the Commons. So, the people of Wales are having a say on these matters and there are opportunities then for there to be a further discussion and debate here in the Senedd through our processes.

Now, where I would agree is that I do think, as with all legislative processes, that there are things that could and should, quite rightly, be done to improve the LCM processes, especially around the time that is available in order to scrutinise. And as Huw Irranca-Davies quite rightly has pointed out, there are times also when the information accompanying LCMs, the memorandums that accompany LCMs, could be improved. I'm very much with the LJC committee in terms of wanting to see improvements on that front, but it is a mistake to say that the LCM process is one that tramps all over devolution. It does not. It is a tool to respect devolution. That's why it was written into the Government of Wales Act as it was, and it is certainly a darn sight better than its predecessor. 

If I can just say this also, the Senedd legislates on a range of different matters. Sometimes, the majority of people in north Wales and representing seats in north Wales vote against the decisions that are taken by politicians predominantly from the south in the Senedd. I don't baulk too much about that. I don't suggest that we need a process that allows for some respect of the fact that people in north Wales might disagree and their representatives might disagree. I accept that that is democracy. And we must respect the fact that the UK Parliament remains sovereign in the UK, across the whole of the UK. And of course devolution must be respected, but we must not forget the fact that the UK Parliament remains sovereign. So, it is for this reason and the others that I've cited that I'll be voting against this motion on the order paper, and would suggest that others should do likewise. Thank you. 

I call on the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, Mick Antoniw.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I start by welcoming the debate? The issue of legislative consent is of considerable importance to Welsh and also to inter-parliamentary democratic processes. So, it is important that we all understand the process, when it is applied and why, and the principles that underlie it. Now, this may be a niche issue for some, but I certainly agree with the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee that this is an important part of our constitutional framework. 

Legislative consent memoranda are only tabled when the UK Government introduces legislation that seeks to make provision in relation to Wales, or which seeks to modify the legislative competence of the Senedd, or which makes provision for any purpose within the legislative competence of the Senedd. So, when this happens, the Government must normally lay a legislative consent memorandum no later than two weeks after introduction. That LCM will then be referred by the Business Committee to a committee or committees, with a timetable to report.

Now, that is the process, but it poses a number of challenges. It means that the trigger for the LCM process is a consequence of the tabling of a Bill in Westminster, and similarly in respect of amendments that are made during the passage of the Bill. Frequently, we do not receive details of a Bill until the last minute, and, when this happens, it makes it virtually impossible to comply with our own Standing Order requirements. The same is true in respect of amendments to Bills, which often appear virtually spontaneously, which are significant and which often make significant additions to a Bill. This then requires urgent analysis by lawyers and for supplementary legislative consent memoranda to be tabled. In effect, such actions by the UK Government can make it very difficult to enable adequate committee scrutiny. So, I agree with that point. Welsh Government lawyers are very often in a similar position of having to analyse significant and complex legal issues within a very short space of time, and I agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed also at inter-governmental level, as in my view it does undermine democratic processes. 

So, when we are considering an LCM, it is because of legislation that has been tabled in Westminster. Our overriding principle, when it comes to legislating for Wales, has been, and will continue to be, that we should legislate in the Senedd in areas within the legislative competence of the Senedd. However, each piece of UK legislation has to be considered on its own merit. Frequently, analysis of such legislation reveals conflicting benefits and disadvantages. Sometimes, the issue is a piece of legislation that would be of benefit to the people of Wales but is not within the current legislative programme. Other times, it relates to issues of cross-border interest, and in other cases it relates to issues of competence, where we will always take a robust and principled position on preserving the integrity of the devolution settlement. 

Now, earlier in the autumn, I wrote to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to outline our criteria for determining the circumstances in which we would consider using a UK Government Bill to legislate in respect of Wales. And since we've made them publicly available, I don't want to take the time now to outline them in detail today. However, to summarise them, we would only consider using a UK Government Bill where there is an opportunity to change the law more quickly than we could achieve in our own programme, or where it is appropriate and advantageous for there to be common regulatory regimes across England and Wales, and provided we retain the power to make our own legislative changes, should we wish, at a later time.

So, it is proper for Members to raise the issue of scrutiny, because it is the case that the scrutiny of the Senedd of such legislation will not be as detailed as that for legislation made in the Senedd. And this is one of the judgments that has to be made when legislation is tabled in Westminster by the UK Government. And for this reason, we are committed to ensuring as much scrutiny as possible through the LCM process, but I recognise the importance of the issue raised, so I confirm that we will be working with the Business Committee to consider how the process can be improved and to address those concerns.

Llywydd, the UK Government's record on respecting the devolution settlement has not been a good one—far from it—and legislation in the aftermath of Brexit has betrayed a centralising, controlling attitude towards devolution here, and the rest of the United Kingdom. The increased use of or attempts to create concurrent powers, the establishment of UK-wide structures and funding regimes in devolved areas, and often the flagrant disregard for the views of the Senedd and Scottish Parliament on some legislation, have given us no reason to believe that this UK Government is a friend of devolution. But we haven't shied away from taking a robust approach to defend our interests as Welsh Ministers and the interests of this Senedd. One example is the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, which Members debated yesterday, in which we successfully negotiated the removal of a proposed new reservation. However, negotiation will sometimes require compromise, and, where a compromise is considered, the test is always whether it is, in all the circumstances, more in the interests of the people of Wales to make the compromise than not to do so. But I can assure Members that we continue as a priority to seek to defend the devolution settlement against attempts to undermine it.

I'd just like to refer to a couple of the comments that have been made. Rhys ab Owen Jones—certainly, when I listen to you speak on these matters, it reminds me a little bit of times I've been in a Welsh chapel, where the issues are ones of good and bad and fire and brimstone. So, I partly agree with you on the constitutional point, but not necessarily with the fundamentalist approach that's been adopted.

Huw, you made a point with regard to the legislation and justice committee, and I recognise the fundamental importance of that committee and certainly take on board the issue of how we might articulate more clearly the rationale behind and underpinning legislative consent memoranda.

Llyr, you made a number of similar points, but, again, just to confirm that I do agree with, I think, some of the comments and the concerns with regard to the issue of scrutiny.

And Jane, with regard to, I think, a number of the points you made, I think, for example, the elections Bill, which you referred to, is an example of where we have in fact fully resisted, I believe, the endeavours to incorporate certain principles that we do not want to see applying to Welsh elections.

And to Heledd, the number of LCMs is actually not something that is a choice of Welsh Government in terms of the recommendations we make; it is a consequence in terms of having to respond to UK Government legislation, which Standing Orders require us to do.

And Darren, I was getting very worried, because right at the beginning I was beginning to agree with you and I wondered whether I would have to admit it or not, but I have to say, unfortunately, I think you began to fall short—you didn't recognise what I think is a concerted assault on devolution. But you are certainly right on the issue about the old LCO system, which was something I think we've all gladly seen the back of.

Ideally, in all legislation falling within the Senedd's competence, I think the view is we should make it here, in this institution. We do have a legislative programme that is increasingly seeking to challenge devolution and the responsibilities of the Senedd in the UK Government, so we will seek to do our legislation, our legislative consent memoranda, in a way that protects and enhances our constitutional settlement, and, most importantly, we will work closely with the Business Committee and with the Senedd and with the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and other committees to look at how the LCM process can be improved. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

I call on Alun Davies to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm grateful to everybody who took part in the debate this afternoon, with the potential exception of that somewhat bizarre contribution from Darren Millar. Deputy Presiding Officer, it's the role of oppositions to oppose Governments, usually, and to seek as many different parliamentary techniques as possible to frustrate the Government from getting its business. This must be the first occasion that I can ever remember where an opposition has not simply waved through Government business but said they don't want the option of scrutinising Government legislation as well. It is quite a bizarre situation to find ourselves in. I welcome the—. Darren wants to make an intervention.

Are you going to take the intervention?

Of course, yes.

Yes, he accepts it.

I haven't suggested at all for one moment that we shouldn't be able to scrutinise legislation. In fact, if you listened more carefully to what I said, I said that there were things that needed to be done to improve the current processes and the opportunities for scrutiny in terms of the policy and the memorandums that are produced. So, it's absolutely not the case. What I was saying was that LCOs are a darn sight better than where we were, and that there are useful opportunities sometimes for the Welsh Government to be able to expedite the implementation of its policies—policies that I sometimes don't agree with, in fact very often don't agree with, but sometimes it's a useful tool.

I can understand that you want to make another speech rescuing your situation, but this isn't the opportunity to do that, I'm afraid.

In terms of where we are, what you do of course when you scrutinise an LCM is that you scrutinise the LCM, the memorandum; you don't scrutinise the legislation, and that is the key failure of this system. It's not in any way—. I don't think you can easily compare it to the old LCO system at all, where you were debating the principle of legislation and the legislative competence; you're here discussing legislation itself, a Bill.

The examples I will give to Darren are the examples that we debated yesterday in terms of leasehold reform, and another LCM that we will discuss in a few weeks' time around building safety. We haven't had the opportunity to scrutinise any of the provisions that are in those pieces of legislation. What we've done is to scrutinise the memorandum where the Welsh Government have said they want to give the power to a Westminster Parliament to legislate. We know, and you've got to be a very, very overly kind individual, I would suggest, if you believe there will be any scrutiny of Welsh Government legislation in Westminster. They barely scrutinise their own legislation across there, let alone the legislation that is being suggested by the Welsh Government. You've got to be a very, very kind individual—I know Christmas is coming, but you take things to an extreme at certain times. So, this is about proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, and I would have anticipated that every Member of the opposition would want and expect the highest levels of scrutiny of any sort of Government legislation.

I welcome very much what the Counsel General has said this afternoon, but, you know, you mention Rhys speaking like a preacher in a chapel, but I must say to you, Counsel General, what I learnt from my chapel upbringing was that you've got to live your beliefs. It's not enough to bend the knee on a Sunday evening or a Sunday morning, you've got to live those beliefs on a Monday morning as well, I'm afraid, Counsel General, and the Government is not doing that at the moment. The Welsh Government is not doing that.

It is not sufficient to say that the Welsh Government has a packed legislative programme when we only have two Government Bills in front of this place. Neither of them are—well, one of them is a significant Bill, the second isn't a significant Bill, and then we have a private Member's Bill. If it is the case that the Government cannot pursue more than two pieces of legislation at any one time, then the Government should say that and should explain why, and the Government should also invest in the resources to enable it to have the resources to pursue more legislation. The Government has control of its own budget and the Government needs to recognise that. We have the right, therefore, to scrutinise that legislation and not simply scrutinise the subcontracting of legislation to another place.

But I'm grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, to everybody who has taken part in the debate. In his two contributions on this matter this week Huw Irranca-Davies, I think, has showed the power of proper parliamentary scrutiny. The work done by the legislation and justice committee on these matters, that is not work that can be put aside by Government; it's work that must be recognised by Government. The power of the argument that I thought that Huw Irranca-Davies made yesterday in the debate on the LCM is something that the Government, I hope, would reflect very, very seriously on.

I recognise the points that Rhys has made and the points that the Counsel General has made, about the conflict, and I think it is a conflict, between the Governments in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland to a lesser extent, and Westminster. I think there is a serious issue about Westminster not recognising the mandate of Members elected here, and our right to govern, our right to legislate. I think there is a serious issue here.

I also think the Welsh Government's case would be more powerful if the Welsh Government used the legislation and the processes in this place in a way that recognised our rights, as well as exercise those rights in debate with the United Kingdom Government. I'm particularly disappointed that the Welsh Government has not sought to use expedited processes where it believes that expedited legislation is necessary.

Alun, you need to conclude now.

If you look at the building safety LCM, a Bill could have been taken through this place in a similar timescale to that which the LCM has taken, and with scrutiny and with the option of people here voting on it.

So, I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the time this afternoon, and I'm grateful to all Members who have participated in the debate. I hope that as a consequence of this debate we will be able to reach an accommodation and agreement with the Welsh Government on how we legislate in the future, and I hope what that will do will be to recognise the power of a democracy that I know the Counsel General has fought for longer than most Members of this place, and I know he believes in it as much as everybody else who has participated in this debate. Thank you.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, we have an objection. I will therefore defer voting on the motion until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.